Key Points: - The two remedies against ex-parte decree are: (i) apply under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree for non-service or sufficient cause; (ii) file a regular appeal under Section 96(2) CPC to challenge the decree on merits. (!) (!) - The scope and inquiries under Order IX Rule 13 CPC are distinct from those under Section 96(2) CPC; a dismissal of the Order IX Rule 13 CPC application on merits does not bar filing an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC. (!) - The right of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and cannot be denied merely because the Order IX Rule 13 CPC application was dismissed; condonation of delay may be warranted to preserve this right if the delay is not due to dilatory tactics. (!) (!) - Sufficient cause for condoning delay should be liberally construed to advance justice, and time spent pursuing Order IX Rule 13 CPC can be considered as sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing the first appeal. (!) (!) - If delay is not condoned, a defendant may be deprived of the opportunity to challenge the ex-parte decree on merits; condonation is appropriate where there is no inaction, negligence, or lack of bonafide. (!) (!) - The High Court’s view that time spent pursuing Order IX Rule 13 CPC cannot be excluded is set aside; the Supreme Court condones the delay and allows the appeal to proceed on merits, without expressing a decision on merits. (!)

What is the effect of dismissing an Order IX Rule 13 CPC application on the right to file a regular appeal under Section 96(2) CPC?

What is the proper standard for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the context of filing an appeal challenging an ex-parte decree?

What are the consequences when a defendant pursuing an Order IX Rule 13 CPC remedy also files a regular appeal challenging an ex-parte decree—can both remedies be pursued concurrently, and how should delays be treated?